Pages

Saturday, October 30, 2010

The United States of America elected its first Black president. There, that sums up the only thing that could possibly pass for good news. We finally got that monkey off of our back. The bad news begins immediately with the requisite disclaimer that, in no way did I intend to suggest anything by the first three sentences, but am compelled nevertheless to disclaim it.

This is the legacy of the first decade of the new millennium.

We were supposed to be entering a new phase of human existence, a new enlightenment, if you will. It seems, however, that we have achieved nothing more than the destruction of reason and the abandonment of sanity. And it's not just here in the United States, it's world wide, but I will make the case from the perspective of an American simply because it's what I (used to) know best.

I realize that these types of reviews are usually reserved for New Year weekends, when major publications remind us of the events of the previous year or decade. I thought I'd get a jump, as nothing other than the pending mid-term elections here seems to offer any hope of real change between now and year-end. Besides, those other reviews tend to offer frivolous reminders like the passing of entertainers (or the imprisonment of others) and gripping headlines from professional sporting events. I will have none of that in my review.

What necessitated my need for a disclaimer at the outset of this article is probably the worst legacy of the new millennium. If I mention "monkey" and "Black" president in the same paragraph - no matter how innocuously -people automatically assume a slur. What's worse is that people like me are conditioned to be cognizant of this and offer such a disclaimer by rote memory. It's become ingrained in our psyches now.

Free speech means different things to different people in this brave new world, and there is a cadre of others who exist seemingly for nothing else but to monitor every spoken or written word. But the outrage is selective. Take as an example any perceived criticism of Muslims and the universal condemnation it receives. Yet no one bats an eye when Mahmoud Ahmedinejad repeatedly refers to Israelis as pigs, or swine, and threatens to annihilate them. A member of our own State Department sent a Twitter birthday greeting to the leader of Iran, for crying out loud.

In Honduras, President Manuel Zelaya tried to increase his power by subverting his own countries Constitution, and his Congress directed the military to remove him. That is exactly what would happen by our own laws in the states, yet our new president and his State Department all sided with Zelaya, demanding his immediate return to power.

Our federal government, charged with the duty to protect its citizens and sovereignty, sued a member state when it legally passed a state law designed to protect its borders and security from a foreign invasion. Not only did the Obama Administration sue Arizona, it was a co-plaintiff with the offending country along with nearly a dozen other foreign countries, all sympathetic to the offending country, Mexico.

Liberals have waged a continuous war on religion, falsely claiming a Constitutional separation of church and state, all the while claiming that there has been no such war. Despite numerous lawsuits demanding the removal of Christian symbols and edicts (Ten Commandments) from government property, they still insist that they merely represent the rule of law. But speak out against any reference to Islam, and they will attack you like a rabid pack of wolves. Ever wonder why?

Then we come to national security. There is a quote attributed to George Orwell that is in dispute. Some say Orwell wrote it, others can find no proof. No matter, the quote is true regardless of who uttered or wrote the words:

We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.

The utter truth is undeniable, yet there are those who refuse to budge in their denigration of the military. Those rough men have throughout history been viewed as barbarians by social elites, even those in the Roman Senate. They are, however, the reason for our comfort and the very creation of our desires. They aren't born to be barbarians, they are purposely trained that way.

But in the new millennium, even though they receive the same training - with a few modifications - they are sent out to complete a mission but hamstrung once in the field. Their Rules of Engagement (ROE) are so prohibitive to the point that they are really being offered up as sacrificial lambs. They can be shot at and if the gunman immediately drops his weapon, they cannot return fire. That is the insanity of the new millennium.

Once it was considered the norm for such "rough men" to eliminate the enemy, including those who worked as clerks responsible for intelligence divulging. Today, the offender is not only safe from retribution, but bestowed with accolades. Case in point: Julian Assange, the Australian founder of WikiLeaks.

Assange is the man behind massive dumps of information that expose our military men and women to grave danger. Equally, the indigents whom our soldiers rely on for support have been exposed to the enemy, and risk death as a result of Mr. Assange's "work". So is Julian Assange now regarded as a public enemy, running from the law? No, he is busy having his face plastered all over the Internet and giving interviews, apparently hailed as some sort of visionary.

The irony lies in the fact that Geert Wilders, leader of the Netherlands' anti-Islam Freedom Party, is being prosecuted for "hate speech", while Ahmedinejad can speak as freely as he pleases about the death of all Jews, and Assange can indirectly kill decent people with impunity.

This new way of life, tragically, has already attained a sacrosanct status, and any assailant of it is immediately cast as an extremist or a heretic. The weight of reality has shifted away from the sane and now lies in the greedy grasp of the inmates. Attempts to reclaim it are successfully portrayed as the work of the dangerous - that would be Conservatives - and broadcast as nefarious works by a compliant media.

One must recall the very end of the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In the remake, Donald Sutherland's character, who had struggled in vain to fight the takeover, is himself assimilated, and points an incriminating finger at a non-conformist while emitting a horrendous squeal.

And as such, so begins the second decade of the 21st century. If you're over 50, take everything you have ever learned and experienced in your life and toss it on the ash heap. None of what you knew applies anymore. Welcome. Please remove your shoes and your brain before entering. We hope you enjoy your stay.
Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 29, 2010

For the last two years we have witnessed an incredible surge in Conservatives who have finally decided that faith in the system would no longer suffice, and who have sacrificed valuable time in board rooms, businesses and cubicles to rally and protest for the first time.

According to polling data, there are more people involved in the political process than ever before. Voter turnout is expected to eclipse past elections, and this is only the mid-terms. Yet, according to the Democrats, we've never been quite as clueless as now.

Speaking to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce yesterday, John Kerry continued the Democrats assault on our intelligence, saying that "we have lost our minds", and that we're basically being led by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. This suggests that we cannot believe what our eyes tell us, but rather that we rely solely on what we're told. We know nothing.

Reporting for duty.

And of course, Kerry also felt compelled to engage in the obligatory, "It's not our fault" gibberish, saying:

"It was not Barack Obama, it was not the Democratic Party. It was not us who asked for a bailout, or created the situation that required a bailout. And it was in response to a Republican president that a lot of Democrats stepped up."

Yes, a Republican president who, for six years had the economy doing quite nicely despite 9/11 and two wars was the the problem. It couldn't possibly be related to the timeline of the Democrats re-taking of the Congress and the start of our economic melt-down in the last two years of Bush's tenure. How could we be so ignorant?

I just hope that the Democrats, after getting their heads handed to them at the ballot box next Tuesday, don't try to pull a Paul Krugman on us and tell us it never happened.
Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 28, 2010

In 2008, I wrote an article titled Champions of the Poor in which I spelled out the cruelty of the Liberal doctrine of deliberately keeping people hungry and dependent in order to remain as their perceived saviors. Charles Rangel has been the 15th Congressional District of New York's congressman for forty years, and he has mastered the technique, which is precisely why he has been re-elected to twenty consecutive terms in office.

Michel Faulkner, 53, is a pastor in the Bronx, NY. It is the heart of the 15th district in which he hopes to unseat Rangel, running on the Republican ticket, and one of the most Liberal bastions of the entire New York metropolitan region. His odds are slim, which is a crying shame.

Despite his name recognition and tenure, Charles Rangel should have been an easy target for Faulkner, yet the latter chose not to exploit the formers vulnerability. That weakness is Rangel's pending House investigation into a variety of misdeeds from tax evasion to improper use of campaign finances. Perhaps the most egregious offense is the fact that Rangel owns four rent-controlled apartments in a city plagued by homelessness. Yet his constituents overlook these transgressions decade after decade.

For a look at Michel Faulkner's background, one can find his bio at his campaign website. For a brief excerpt:

Although he suffered a major injury during collegiate competition, Michel tried out and eventually signed with the National Football League, playing a season with the New York Jets in 1981.

While with the Jets, he lived in the Bronx with a family whose head was a Pastor of a house church and ran a drug rehab center. Led in part by the Pastor’s example, in 1983, Michel returned to Virginia Tech and prepared for his future calling by graduating with a master’s degree in education and career counseling.

Upon completion of his master’s degree in 1985, Michel was recruited to Liberty University to become assistant dean of students where he was promoted to Vice President for Urban Ministry in 1987. Here Michel trained, equipped and sent out more than 100 urban missionaries.

Today in the New York area, Michel was a guest of John Gambling on WOR Radio 710AM. He spoke exactly of what I wrote two years ago. He proclaimed that Blacks do not need to be coddled and helped, that they are more than self sufficient, and that government should just get out of the way and allow them to succeed. As part of his ministry, that is the message he has been bringing to his flock, and something that shakes the so-called "Black leadership" to its foundation.

If there was ever a better time for the likes of Charles Rangel to be ousted, this is it. Please pray for Michel. And while you're at it, please pray for our Black brethren to finally be freed from the last shackles of slavery; the velvet chains of false benevolence.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Hard as it may be to believe, the Right is the ideological coalition of the Nerds, despite the fact that they have been portrayed by the Left and its media accomplices as the incarnation of evil. The members of the "party of no", the party that supposedly wants to poison children and starve seniors, have actually been the decades-long victims of a figurative brutalization by the alleged party of compassion.

The very politicians and sympathetic pundits who pretend to be so concerned about both physical and cyber-bullying have been the most aggressive tormentors of their counterparts on the political spectrum. Ironically, most of this terrorizing has occurred in the electronic medium. Never let it be said that Liberals let irony and hypocrisy stand in their way.

As Liberals have run rampant for years, protesting every perceived evil through the most violent of means, we have been stuffed in our lockers listening to the cacophony they create in their baseless outrage, burning cars, smashing windows and attacking police. We have had our lunch money stolen every day in the form of punitive taxation. We have had our candidates viciously attacked during campaigns by opponents and their enablers in the media alike.

Then we listen to these violent provocateurs and tormentors preach the need to halt bullying, when they are the very people who have stigmatized the age-old remedy to bullying, effectively exacerbating the problem. Just as Dr. Spock was to child rearing, so have the Liberals been to political differences. Most of us have long believed that the only way to stop a bully is to punch him right in the nose. The Left insisted that reason should be the fix, but just as the bully has traditionally viewed negotiation as a sign of weakness, so have our repeated attempts been received by Liberals.

The Tea Party has delivered the long overdue punch in the nose that the Left has been begging for, and they have reacted just as predictably as our fathers told us - many years ago - that "Billy" would, if we only stood up to him. They are crying like babies.

In six days, the bully will get detention, and he will cry even harder, a humiliated former hero of the school, now exposed for the weakling he truly has been. Thank you, America, and thank you Tea Party patriots everywhere.

To the Republican Party, I have but one simple admonition before you regain control of Congress; please don't become the nerd-turned-arrogant-ass that has been so frequently portrayed in the cinema. Retain your class and humility and, above all else, cling to the memory of how you got here. The pitchforks and torches will not be so hard to find the next time around. Those we plan to keep handy.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Barack Hussein Obama is worried. He knows he's going to lose his rubber stamp in a week and a half and that he will be forced to deal with a hostile Congress for the second half of his term as president. He's masking his concerns by claiming that he just wants fair elections and transparent campaign funding. Strange talk coming from a hypocrite who promised all of that in his own run for the White House, yet failed to follow through on any of it.

Obama is running around telling his crowd that the Republicans are receiving money from foreign corporations and big business, all with virtually no evidence to back up such absurd notions. And still, his acolytes in the media believe that he can do no wrong.

They forget - or ignore - the fact that Obama was the largest recipient of donations from BP Oil, not only a large corporation, but a foreign one. Obama says that the Republicans are receiving money and that we have "no way of knowing where it's coming from", yet again, the media neglects to mention his own mysterious cash from anonymous online donors. And there actually is evidence that he received cash from foreign interests.

In August of 2008, Aaron Klein of World Net Daily wrote about two Palestinian brothers from Gaza who gave the Obama campaign nearly $30,000. From the article, first paragraph:

The brothers, Monir Edwan and Hosam Edwan, claimed that they merely "bought t-shirts" from Obama's campaign because they - and many others - wanted Obama to be president. That's a strange statement that should have raised a few eyebrows, but elicited little more than a yawn from the media. Equally perplexing is the fact that the brothers, living in Gaza, were able to get a shipment of t-shirts delivered, considering that Israel had in place a tight blockade. More from Klein's piece:

But Edwan could not explain how he managed to get shipments of T-shirts into the Gaza Strip during the months he claimed to have purchased the merchandise, since Israel imposed a tight closure of the Gaza Strip starting in June 2007 that lasted until June 2008, when the Israeli government agreed to a cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza.

"We don't want to cause any damage to Obama's campaign," was Edwan's reply.

Edwan said he wants Obama to be president.

"Not just the people in Gaza but people from all over the world are rooting for this great man," he told WND.

The Obama campaign at the time stated that the money was returned, but the Edwans say they never saw any money. Cue the crickets, the media didn't care, yet again. Now Obama, and Biden, are claiming that the Republicans may be receiving some sort of nefarious money?

AP Photo of illegal Maria Gianni

Add to this the incredibly outrageous reports that illegal immigrants are openly canvassing for Democratic votes on the west coast. That is wrong on so many levels, I scarcely know where to begin. The Democrats simply have no shame, although they really have no need for it. No one is saying a word about it on the networks or the major publications, so they are led to believe that it's perfectly fine to break the rules.

I would love to know how bad this electoral bloodbath looming on the horizon would be if the media actually did its job and actually informed the people.
Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 22, 2010

When our eyes are no longer our most trusted instruments, when we rely upon others to tell us a truth contrary to that which we plainly see, we are a lost people.

Sooner or later there must come a time when even the least educated amongst us must realize when we are being duped. It is certainly an admirable trait to defer to experts in particular fields, but such reliance cannot be accepted automatically simply because of ones credentials, and especially when they are clearly lying.

Paul Krugman is a columnist for the New York Times, writing on political issues based heavily on the economic aspects thereof. He has been awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He is also Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University as well as Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics. Very smart guy, that Krugman; some would say infallible. Some, but not all...

On October 10th, Krugman wrote a piece in the New York Times Opinion Pages titled Hey, Small Spender, in which he makes the incredible claim that the federal government has not expanded the size of the government under Barack Obama, nor has it increased spending. His opening two paragraphs (emphasis mine):

Here’s the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can’t create jobs.

Here’s what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.

Krugman goes on to complain that there hasn't been enough spending, blaming a campaign of disinformation for what he perceives as a fallacious claim that the country is spending too much. Fortunately, someone better equipped than I to counter Krugman's absurd claims has noticed and responded.

Charles Blahous wrote yesterday a blistering rebuttal to Krugman's piece, laying the culpability for disinformation squarely where it belongs; on the Left. Blahous was recently confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be one of two trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Programs. In his article on Economics21, he provides some very interesting government charts which show that Krugman is using his expertise for nefarious intent. Below is one such chart:

The chart is from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Do you doubt that government spending has soared under Obama and the Democrats? Can Krugman be taken seriously based solely on his work to attain the status of uber-expert in economics? Sadly, too many urban elites - who live in ritzy areas of big cities and wave the Times like a badge - have an unassailable claim of intellectualism when debating in public. Think about it...who would you believe in an argument? The person quoting the New York Times, or the person quoting Sanity Sentinel?

As a guitar player, I would assert on this page that a guitar has strings. I've felt them and heard them, every time I play, albeit poorly. But if Les Paul, a legend of guitar and a designer of the instrument suddenly declared that the strings are a figment of a musician's imagination, how would I, a layman, dare to contradict him? Of course I'd be right, but if no one believes me, I might as well be wrong.

It is pretty much the same here. Krugman, a recognized economic genius, goes off the deep end and tells us we know nothing of what we see, and we're expected to accept that? Not me, and I suspect, not you either.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Much has been made of Bill Clinton's political savvy by virtue of his tactical navigation following the Newt Gingrich-led capture of Congress in 1994, Clinton's first mid-term election of his first term as president. As Gingrich engineered his place as Speaker of the House, Clinton had the sense to recognize the mood of the people, and corrected his course by tacking back toward the center, and away from the far left destination he originally sought.

Hillary was not happy at "the captain's" decision, but being the good first mate, she obeyed the orders out of a sense of duty, no matter the bitter after taste. There was a brief brush with mutiny with her health care fiasco, but nothing that agitated the crew to the point of disaster, and the administration chugged along, actually benefiting from the grounding sense of it's opposition. President Clinton's acceptance of parts of his foe's ideas helped to cement his perceived greatness. He was a political prodigy.

Now we have Liberal commentators desperately trying to convince the electorate that - despite our own perceptive experience - Obama will follow the same trajectory in order to remain politically viable. Regardless of Obama's increasingly defiant rhetoric, we're expected to believe that he may suddenly succumb to some sort of epiphany that will miraculously transform him into a moderate who will heed the admonitions of the masses.

Sorry, I'm not buying, and I suspect there will be many who did who will soon be on the long returns line seeking credit or exchange.

The primary reason for my prognostication lies in Obama's stubborn refusal to accept his own inadequacies, or even the possibility that he may be on the wrong path. He paints his opposition as either having nefarious intent, or as mentally deficient and incapable of comprehending his magnificence. He is utterly convinced that his vision for America, regardless of its incredible divergence from the Founders' intent, is correct, and if he can't convince you, he will mandate you.

Rather than realize that his agenda is viewed by the people as not only unacceptable, but infuriating, Obama instead maintains that we're not thinking clearly, and that our information sources are lying to us. He will stop at nothing to discredit critics, going so far as to make baseless accusations and false statements. Pretty strange behavior for an alleged lawyer.

Someone capable of such arrogance is certainly unlikely to yield to pressure. It will be extremely interesting to see how Obama deals with the distinct probability that he will no longer have the measure of support from Congress that he currently enjoys. It appears almost certain that for the second half of his singular term he will face a hostile crowd in the Capitol.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Based solely upon President Obama's recent psychiatric evaluation of you, the electorate, I made the snap decision to write slowly so that at least some of you poor louts could grasp the words. Then again, my own intellectual acumen becomes questionable by the very nature of a silly belief that you will read them as slowly as I wrote them.

Hey, it's not my fault. I used to be real smart, it's just that now I'm scared, and I'm not wired to think clearly when in this state of fear. Obama said so. And it's not your fault either, dear reader. Which leads me to wonder about a few things. Prepare to disengage Warp Drive kids, we're about to go really s l o w...

Just to lay the ground work here, you know, so you can follow along - since I have no big pictures to show you after every thought - let's start with Obama's endless metaphors of the proverbial car in the ditch. (Just for decorum and a modicum of respect for the deceased, we'll leave Ted Kennedy out of this one). Obama has been using this comparison as proof that Republicans wrecked the economy and left him and his cohorts to rescue it, or the car.

Well okay, let's just say that George W. Bush was not as frugal as we'd have preferred, but how bad was the damage, really? Less than half a trillion dollars, that's how bad, and after eight years in office. Now the deficit is triple that amount, and we have nothing to show for it, much less any hope of ever seeing anything for it. I'm reminded of the inexperienced driver who, when caught in an ice patch or a mud hole, incorrectly uses the false logic that more power will do the trick in extricating their vehicle from the predicament.

The Democrats' agenda - fueled by the urgent teleprompter-induced rhetoric of Barack Obama - has been to step on the gas and move as quickly as possible. All they have managed to do is bury the car deeper in the ditch. As the people yell at them from the street, beseeching them to stop!, they laugh and wave dismissively at us, saying we're just frightened by the engine's noise.

Yeah, that's us...you and me, the Neanderthal Right, frightened by fire and round things, like the Wheel.

The sad truth is this; we're not frightened, we're damned angry. The Democrats are the ones who are scared, and they are, as a result, not thinking clearly. If I was to pit my layman's psych evaluation against the President's, I'd say the Democrats were projecting their own fear.

I'd go further, suggesting that they are delusional and psychopathic in their governance since 2007. One usually expects to see employees willfully disregard the instructions of their employers when it involves the UAW or the SEIU, but last I checked, Congress or the Executive branch was still non-union.

Truth be told, I've been so terrified for my nation lately, I may have missed those particular bargaining sessions on C-SPAN. But it is my anger, as I suspect may be the same for many of you, that has kept me from flipping out like a claustrophobic in a coffin. And as the light of November 2nd draws nearer, and the air smells fresher, my frazzled nerves quiver less and my breathing becomes less labored.

And my thinking resumes its former state, released from the grip of horror. Heck, before you know it, I'll even understand every word of those rapid-fire legal disclaimers at the end of commercials.
Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 14, 2010

On September 14th, 2001, President George W. Bush toured the ruins of the World Trade Center, wading through the myriad rescue workers searching frantically for survivors of an event few would ever forget. Three days after the vile terrorist attack turned two 110 story buildings to nothing but rubble, the mood was as lugubrious as it was urgent. Rescue workers clawed at the rubble as if in a daze, hoping to find one more alive, barely able to comprehend the reality of what had happened.

President Bush then grabbed a bullhorn and climbed atop a pile of rubble and - with his left arm around the shoulder of firefighter Bob Beckwith - uttered the words that not only shook the veil of disbelief from the eyes of the crowd, but energized them in a way that only a true leader could. Bush raised the bullhorn and said:

“I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

Never once did it occur to President Bush to say that this mess was caused by the inattentiveness of Bill Clinton, and that cleaning it up was going to be hard work.

In sharp contrast, President Obama now finds himself atop his own figurative pile of rubble, the wreckage and remnants of the country he and his Democrat cohorts in Congress have systematically dismantled. Obama's bullhorn is his teleprompters, no doubt etched at the top with the indelible inscription, "Blame Bush", which he dutifully repeats at every speech like a nun says her Rosary.

We're nearly two years removed from the Bush administration and four years into a Democrat-controlled Congress, yet the mantra has not changed. Not only has the din not subsided, it is now moving toward full crescendo as the mid-term elections draw near, with the president and the candidates alike sounding the wolf alarm.

Rather than campaign on a continuation of their great achievements - there are none - the Democrats have set up their miserable failures as the work of their predecessors, and now warn us that returning Republicans to power will be a return to those policies. While it may be true that Republicans lost their way, and were drawn away from fiscal conservatism, the Democrats grabbed that baton like the anchor in a four-man relay team.

If Reagan and Bush ran deficits, they at least fostered an environment of prosperity, one that showed promise of paying them back down with time. Since the Democrats took control - and particularly since the election of Barack Obama - those relatively small deficits are not even visible in the rear view mirror any longer, and any hope of paying them down is dwindling like a parchment consumed by fire.

With less than three weeks to go until Election Day, people must think long and hard about their choices in the voting booth. Think of one leader on the rubble inspiring people in a terrible time of tragedy, and another wailing about the surrounding devastation like a kid who broke his mother's lamp and trying to blame it on his big brother.
Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, October 9, 2010

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

For decades, Progressives have been telling us what they have planned for us, speaking of their intentions to enslave us, but coating the message with alleged compassion and benevolence. Perhaps the message has been too subtle for many. Or perhaps the notion is too horrible to accept, and many have chosen to ignore it.

In his State of the Union speech in 1935, Franklin Roosevelt said, "The lessons of history ... show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." Roosevelt then proceeded to become one of the most proficient pushers the country has ever known.

As time marches on, that proclivity becomes more boldly and arrogantly pronounced, as if the purveyors no longer are concerned about the exposure of their agenda. Just as the pusher begins as a "friend", giving out the drugs for nothing, once the recipient can no longer do without, the pusher reveals himself as a fiend. By that time the addict no longer cares so long as the medication is still administered, and at any price.

There are far too many people in America today who have been conditioned to accept failure and - subsequently - the assistance "offered" by the government. Worse, they have come to expect and demand it. Free stuff to them has become something to which they have felt entitled. Once the mind set of society was sufficiently numbed to the stigma formerly associated with, say, food stamps, the floodgates opened.

The Progressives of government successfully convinced the masses of their philanthropic intent, somehow managing to leave out of the equation that it was being exercised through theft from those who would not be the recipients. The recipients, meanwhile, were unaware that there would eventually be a price to pay, albeit not monetary, for their care. Until now.

The mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, and the governor of the state, David Paterson, recently sought permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ban sugary drinks from being purchased with food stamps. Their reason was part of an obesity-fighting proposal the pair is working up, claiming the right to decide what people dependent on government assistance may consume.

The notion of limiting food stamp purchases has caused quite an uproar, even from Conservative commentators such as Steve Malzberg of WOR radio in New York. While I can appreciate the knee-jerk reaction from people I normally agree with, Mr. Malzberg and others have missed what Barack Hussein Obama would call a "teachable moment". There are definitely lessons to be learned, here.

To revisit FDR's words, "To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." Yet in 2008, when Maine attempted what Bloomberg and Paterson are now proposing, the plan was criticized by advocates for the poor because, as they feared, it would scare people into avoiding food stamps. And in 2004, when Minnesota tried to ban junk foods like soda and candy from food stamp purchases, the USDA turned down the state's plan because they said it would violate the Food Stamp Act's definition of food. They were also concerned that it would embarrass food stamp recipients at the checkout line.

There's that whole "removal of the stigma" thing again. The fact is that the Progressives want more people to move toward dependency. That much should be obvious by now. The original concept of assistance was a hand up, not a hand out, but that notion has long been abandoned, as it should be noted that they are trying to not only keep people dependent, but they want to lure more into the trap.

In March I wrote Not Under My Roofto showthe attitude being cultivated by the governing elites today. The whole idea is that as long as the government is paying your way, you will do as they say. New York has basically declared that they feel that as long as they are buying your food, they can tell you what to buy and eat. After all, they are trying to control obesity.

The question must then be asked, why? Does the government hate fat people? Of course not, so there must be another reason that they are concerned with the girth of the citizens. That reason is health care costs. Once Universal Health Care kicks in, nutrition won't be the only area the government will seek to control.

While some are outraged by the New York proposal regarding food stamps - and while I share some of that outrage - I am more grateful for the lesson it lends.
Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

With Obama speaking at the Carnegie Mellon Auditorium in Washington yesterday to the "Most Powerful Women Summit", God once again delivered a sign. It is something He has been doing a lot lately, sort of like snowing out an Al Gore global warming fest.

In the middle of another lengthy, narcissistic oratory delivered by the One - who might believe that he is the savior - the Presidential Seal abruptly dropped from the front of Obama's podium and crashed unceremoniously to the stage.

The Scriptures tell us that God is neither vain nor prone to fits of spiteful retribution, having instead a forgiving love for us that knows no bounds. (Well, there was that one thing with the rain and the faunal couples' cruise, but the fact is that we had really pushed the envelope prior to that.)

It could be argued, then, that Liberals have been poking God in His eye long enough to provoke Him into playing favorites. Gore most likely offended God through his hubristic insistence that we were capable of destroying that which He created. Obama seems to have run afoul of the Lord as well, perhaps by declaring his Christianity while avoiding church like the plague.

It could also be the myriad lies of Obama that has God in a snit, one never knows. God does work in mysterious ways, after all. My guess is that He may just be a tad put off over what Obama and his ilk have done to this country. All of humanity may not be capable of destroying what God has made, but a portion of them have the ability to ruin one country that He has blessed.

Yeah, I maintain that God simply slapped the Seal of off Obama's podium. You know, just a little reminder.
Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 3, 2010

While there is no time stamp on the above photograph, it looks to be around mid-day judging by the shadows cast by the trees. Aside from a few stragglers scattered here and there, the entire grassy area to the left is nearly empty.

Now lets compare that with the same shot from August 28th, the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor rally:

Long shot of the Restoring Honor rally, 8-28-10

Even accounting for the possibility that these two photographs were taken a few hours apart on their respective days, the crowd-size disparity is stunning.

Friday, October 1, 2010

It may be the root question upon which all other means of the so-called progressives are based and defended; propose Heaven on Earth and then demand from your enemies an explanation as to why they oppose it.

Rhetoric and phraseology are critical elements, for they play on the emotions of the sound-bite generation, relying on support for an agenda that will ultimately destroy the very people from whom that support is sought. The idea has always been to deliver that which they were tricked into requesting.

When enough people are convinced that they are about to be deprived of their wishes - even though those wishes were foisted upon them - they instinctively turn on those who stand in opposition. So it is that our current government is shaping the debate leading up to the mid term elections, and also how they have remained as sympathetic figures in the main stream press. Granted, that media has bought the lie wholesale long ago, but I truly wonder now if they are not a part of the duped masses. The message is powerful.

Draconian restrictions on the lives of ordinary Americans have trumped the concept of liberty for decades with the clarion call being the salvation of our basic needs. Capitalists are successfully portrayed as enemies of clean air and fresh water, regardless of their equal dependence on such staples. Stupid notions of equating massive amounts of monies to the quality of education our young receive have become unassailable.

Common sensibilities have succumbed to a culture of fallacious emotion, fed by the lies of power-hungry politicians, and exploited by the masters of the "campaign du jour". Everything from slavery to education to global warming has been co-opted by the Left as a means to shame us into accepting the false premise that Man can achieve Utopia, and those who believe such rubbish are automatically and sufficiently enraged to the point of violent protest.

Irony is lost on them, however, as turmoil is the first casualty of a Utopian environment. Theoretically, "Utopia" is a place devoid of conflict of any kind. In a Utopian world, no one has wants, no one has needs, no one suffers. While it may sound like a wondrous place, it is inherently impossible in the physical world unless administered by a regime completely absent of conscience. What kind of ruling class would have such a sterile view of governance? What kind of society could maintain that level of enforcement?

The answer lies in Dystopia, probably a few exits down on the highway to Hell.

Dystopia is a place masquerading as Utopia. It has all of the same traits, but is maintained by the brutal suppression of dissent. Liberty and personal expression are viewed as detrimental to the "peace", and are therefore not tolerated. Equal poverty is the norm, and complaints are forbidden. The entire concept is that of a massive collective, where protest is punishable by incarceration.

This entire exercise should be needless, as I should not have to point out the obvious, but the evidence points in the opposite direction. Too many people applaud the approaching exit, apparently relieved at the journey's end, where we pull off the Interstate and into the small town of subjugation, from which we shall never escape.

Personally, I was just thinking of getting a full tank of petrol and hitting the fast lane again. I'll welcome Utopia when my "car" finally breaks down and God - the only Mayor of that town - hands me the key to the city.
Sphere: Related Content